Phillips is now considered a “prohibited person” after a nurse wrote a few extra words in her hospital chart. (Photo credit: Bloomberg)

A California man, who had his guns confiscated in March after his wife spent three days in the hospital for psychological issues, had his firearms returned to him last month, but not the ammunition.

Back in December, at the suggestion of her psychiatrist, Lynette Phillips, of Upland, California, checked herself into a hospital due to an adverse reaction to a change in medication. Apparently a then recent adjustment in her medication had resulted in her crying uncontrollably.

Only when Phillips was admitted to the hospital, a nurse jotted down in her chart that not only was she involuntarily committed, but that she was posed a suicide risk. Both of which were untrue.

“I kept telling her I had a grand-baby at home and had to be better for Christmas,” Phillips told TheBlaze back when the incident first occurred. “Does that sound like the words of someone who is a risk to themselves and others?”

Phillips claims that she was never at risk for suicide and that the nurse put words in her mouth.

Several months later, after Phillips had spent only three days in the hospital, nine fully armed California Justice Department agents showed up at her house to confiscate her husband’s three firearms. One of the firearms, which she bought as a gift for her husband, was registered to Phillips. The agents took all three.

“We’re not contacting anybody who can legally own a gun. The only people we’re contacting are people who are prohibited from owning guns,” said Special Agent Supervisor John Marsh. (Photo credit: Bloomberg)

According to Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, “The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm” regardless of who the registered owner is. And because of those few words jotted down by a nurse, Phillips had become a “prohibited person” thus allowing the agents to come into her home and take her husband’s guns.

Under California law, a “prohibited person” includes anyone who “has been committed to a mental institution,” meaning that Phillips could “not possess or have under … her control any firearm.”

Additionally, Phillips questioned the effectiveness of such laws. “This happened in December,” she said. “I asked them at what point where they notified. They said between 24 to 48 hours after I was in the hospital.” Yet it took authorities three months to confiscate her husband’s firearms to reduce the risk that she posed to herself and others.

And several months later, after much paperwork, more money and greater hassles, Phillips’ husband had his firearms returned, but not the estimated $400 to $600 worth of ammunition that was taken as well, ammo that has become quite difficult to get in some parts of the country.

Phillips’ attorney, Chuck Michel, said he’s not surprised that the ammo wasn’t returned to them when they met with authorities at what they described as an “unmarked building” in Riverside to collect his firearms. Michel explained that it’s most departments’ policies not to return both at the same time.

“The thing that they’re worried about is that the person loads up the gun in the lobby,” he said in an interview with TheBlaze. “I understand that.”

However, Phillips decided that it wasn’t worth it to try to get the ammo back. “It’s a process, unfortunately, we should never have had to go through in the first place,” she said.

Phillips still hasn’t technically had her right to bear arms reinstated. She must go before a judge, most likely with a note from her psychiatrist in hand stating that she does not pose a threat to herself or others, in order to legally be in possession of a firearm.

“I do feel I have every right to purchase a gun. I’m not a threat. We’re law-abiding citizens,” she said. But that’s apparently not a decision that’s up to her, it’s something that must be determined first by her psychiatrist and secondly by a judge.

This brings about a serious and thought-provoking question:

“How do you determine when someone is crazy or mentally unstable enough?” Michel asked. “It’s a hard societal issue to come to grips with.”

Years ago my first wife wanted to take my truck out to party. After I told her "No, take your own car." she called the police and told them I had said I was going to kill myself. After being taken for a 75 hour psych hold, I was put into a room with 14 crazy homeless men, no chairs, no benches, no nothing. I finally was given an intake by a med student 40 hours later and released. Unfortunately even though I was cleared I had my right to own a firearm revoked for 7 years as I couldn't afford 6 months of therapy and a good lawyer. System is broken.

These situations are why I do not support mandatory policies and sentences without having rapid due process to correct the jackass nurse's inaccurate words. I would seek to have a complaint on her work record.

I'll only go to a doctor or hospital if I'm dying and I'll ONLY say what's needed. I don't answer questions about my personal life to ANYONE. Head shrinks are COMPLETELY out of the equation. Trust no one, lose nothing. when you feel you need to tell a stranger about your personal stuff...shut yer yap before it stings ya.

I agree about the Shrinks! My long time ex wife spent sometime in a mental institution probably 40 years ago. I met several of her doctors. Generally speaking they were crazier then the people they were treating! No Joke

California state law requires that the ammo is stored separate, when in transport. I would do the same for home storage, but they'd never find my ammo, and my guns would be in a safe they wouldn't be able to find either. After the reports of police confiscating guns in Canada during a flood, I would do this in any state.

While the system seemed to have a little problem with timing on this one and it seems to have been a charting snafu that placed this woman on the prohibited persons list, should the state have confiscated the ammo in the first place? All I can find is a prohibition to firearms, not ammo.

yeah this is crap. everyone is legally allowed to keep and bear arms. sick of watching my constitution being overthrown with no real fight at all. the minute this goes national, it's time to find a new nation.

Lets see. They steal a mans property and don't return all of it, yet the lawyer thinks that is ok? If it had been my guns they wouldn't have had a chance to return them. The county and city would have ceased to exist after the first day.

Another argument against registration and for linking healthcare to the police. When some busybody asks if I have firearms, I tell them I lost them in a voting accident (since Manchin is our senator, it's believable). This sort of thing also causes those that need treatment for an illness or their disability to avoid the treatment. Nobody wants stormtroopers showing up at their door because you feel bad. Stop demonizing the mentally ill NOW.

“How do you determine when someone is crazy or mentally unstable enough?” Michel asked. “It’s a hard societal issue to come to grips with.”.

Second question.. Say some Judge does find someone "stable" and this said person does go out and does something stupid, is the Judge now liable? isn't that how the Libs have played their game, blame the ones who gave it, sold it, made it?

At risk of pointing out the obvious, when someone takes something from you illegally, then doesn't return it, isn't that called "theft"? At risk of sounding righteous, here in the UK, we prefer to lock up our criminals. Not for long, I grant you (usually about 2 years for murder now, which gets suspended if you're a cop) but it's the thought that counts!

Key word...medication, she was on medication therefore she was already a government sheep! They deserved what they received. Going to and relying on government brainwashed medical personnel will only get you in the herd! Bah bah bah.

The state of Kalifornia only cares about taking as many guns away from all people that they can; with or without a reason. This "problem" could have been cleared up with a single phone call, saving the victims and the state a lot of money that was wasted. Instead, they used it as an opportunity to commit an act of tyranny against a peaceful citizen. There is no other explanation.

The type of hospital was not mentioned. A Mental Institution is not a General Hospital. California has a series of laws dealing with patients entered into a Mental Institution. One wonders if these laws were adhered to from their lack of specific mention.

"How do you determine when someone is crazy or mentally unstable enough?" YOU don't, THEY will, and it's going to be an expanding definition that will, of course, become so slanted in favor of the state that it will next to impossible to own a gun. The old "you must be crazy if you own, or want to own, a gun" argument.

NO...At some point in the near future anyone and everyone that owns or wants to own a firearm will be classified as mentally unstable and will not be allowed to own or use a gun. This will be the face of the new "Gun Control" !!!